I am not voting for Kerry, but if Kerry wins, what will change? I don't care for Kerry at all, but I also feel that he, or any President, is not able to change much. What do you think will be the ramifications of a Kerry win?

What will NOT change is mid-east policy especially with regards to Israel. And that is the root of ALL the problems we are currently having with terrorism.

If we had a president who began a fair mideast policy and treated Israel no different than other mideast nations, we would not have problems with mideast terrorism, end of story.

But with two-party politics, that will never change.

Kerry can do lots of things at home though. Reverse the tax cuts for the rich, improve the economy, education, health care. And that's reason enough for any American (ok, not the millionaires) to vote for him.

Unless something real screwy happens, Congress will still be in GOP hands. Therefore it will be real difficult for Kerry to get anything substantial through.

But, I figure our net take-home will go down and because of that the economy will slow. Remember, taxes are a negative influance on the economy.

Kerry will attempt to intervene in business by penalizing corporations that move work overseas. This will no doubt cause some of these corporations to close their doors. Hey, but then everyone stands in the un-employment line.

Universal health-care will rear its ugly head again with perscription drugs being the flavor of the day. Kerry will probably try to eliminate patents on drugs so that generics can hit the market right away. Anyone care to examine why a major drug company would invest billions in a drug only to have the formula given to all?

But the biggest change is that we'll all get to call someone new "the idiot"

Sometimes it's better to shut up and leave the capital markets to those who understand it...you both don't! Funny that most dealers, analysts, fund managers etc. do not really care since most things are already priced in. Fact is, there are other things that will form the macrotrend that will guide the capital markets, but certainly not which one of those 2 guys gets elected tomorrow!

I don't think much would change at all except I'm pretty sure my taxes will go up. I'm middle-class and don't believe for one second Kerry won't get in my wallet. Other than that, everything will pretty much run its own course including the economy which will improve regardless of who's in the WH.

Andreas, you can kiss my ass. I've got a pretty good understanding of how markets work. I've spent a fairly good portion of my life studying them academically and making a fair amount of money by using that knowledge.

Though I'm not a big fan of George Soros' politics, his latest book reiterates a fantastic point. Markets are almost always wrong. If not, how could bubbles exist? The only points where they are correct are what he call the inflection points - that is, when the bubble bursts or when the market bottoms out. If everything is already factored in, I guess we should expect the market to remain steady on Tues and Weds of this week. Let's see

If anything market volatility has increase as information technology has improved. That sort of sink's your argument. You might disagree with me but to say that you and the other professions are the only one with answers is a bit pompus.

Making more than $200K/Year are you? No? Then your taxes AREN'T going up. Kerry isn't going to penalize companies that offshore work, but provide tax incentives for those that do not offshore. If you are making more than $200K/year then congratulations, now start paying for the war in Iraq.

The days of big corporate tax-giveaways most definitely are over. Oil companies, coal companies and all the rest that choose to do business in this country but want to avoid having to support it financially are in for a rude awakening. Halliburton won't be seeing any more no-bid contracts.

I wonder how long Bush will hang onto the ranch in Crawford after tomorrow? The ranch bought specifically for use as a stage-prop to cement the image of the rough-n-tumble cowboy (who ironically is afraid of horses).

Well I dont think the relationship with the UK will be the same. Bush and Blair seemed to be like best friends with Blair and Bush both for the war in Iraq, but Kerry against it. I think if Kerry wins, there may be a fallout of some sort

Let's see, my taxes went down under Bush. Kerry said he will roll back the Bush tax cuts. That means my taxes will go up.

Taxes are a negative influence on the economy. Some taxes are necessary in order to preserve the peace and society. But any taxes above that are excessive. The simple fact of the matter is that the more a society pays in taxes the less they have to purchase goods and services. That is why the economy will slow under a Kerry administration.

Example: If my taxes go up, I will probably defer buying a new car next year. What will that do to the economy? Alone, not a thing, but what if several thousand families make the same decision? Think Chrysler, Ford and GM can survive thousands of families deferring purchases?

What about Honda, Toyota and the others that out-source their jobs to us in order to remain competitive in our market. What happens when they start scaling back production because people aren't buying their cars?

And that's only one industry. Examine it at the micro level or at the macro level; an increase in taxes beyond what is necessary to run government is excessive. Every dollar that is spent by the people vs. paid in taxes generates more money. Taxes are re-distribution of funds and don't grow funds.

Wow talk about shortsighted.. I guess in the world of the LWAK when a company shows a profit they stick all that money in big canvas bags with dollar signs on them and shove them under the CEOs bed instead of doing stupid things like:

Buying more equipment
Buying new equipment
Hiring more workers
Otherwise re-investing in the company

I have news for you but most CORPORATIONS are structured so they pay little to no tax. The only people really being hurt by taxing businesses more are Proprietorships and partnerships, lets just kill off all the small businesses. Also, tax breaks are typically given by cities or states as incentive to open a new facility there.. when companies open a new facility many studies have shown that the economic stimulus from having more people employed and paying taxes typically more than makes up for the break given to the company. Try thinking 3 steps down the food chain for once.

"Halliburton won't be seeing any more no-bid contracts."

Yeah right, and EmiratesA345 will date a fat chick.

"but provide tax incentives for those that do not offshore"

I am a Senior working on my BBA in accounting and I can come up with no less than 10 ways to get around this. I am sure the financial whiz kids at any of the companies on the Fortune 500 can come up with hundreds.

"Making more than $200K/Year are you? No? Then your taxes AREN'T going up."

I guess we need to punish those nasty rich people for making all that money and then putting it back into the economy in the form of investing or buying a bigger house, or buying a new car. Damn those rich people, destroying the very fabric of our nation. We should have everyone make exactly the same.

The rich pump their money into the upper-level markets. They buy in their own little rich worlds. When was the last time you saw the CEO of a major company shopping at walmart? What happens is the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

In theory, the trickle-down effect sounds great. But it DOESNT trickle down. It doesn't work.

When was the last time you saw the CEO of a major company shopping at walmart?

Ok say you take a CEO. He goes out to dinner someplace. His meal costs $100. He leaves what is considered a standard 15% tip. Say his waiter is a college kid making just a few thousand dollars a year. If that CEO had not gone out to his $100 dinner that kid would have never recieved his $15. This goes further. The kitchen staff all makes say on average $12/hr. Because people eat at this restaraunt they are on the clock at that time because the revenue is generated to justify having them there, they all get their share. To take this even further, The restaraunt buys its supplies from somewhere, probably a food distributor, because this restaraunt does good business they order more food, etc.. you can take this even further if you feel like doing the typing.

Yeah I may not see the CEO of a company personally shopping at wally world but he isn't wiping his ass with gold leaf Charmin, he may not be personally shopping there but someone is.

The guy selling the CEO his Ferrari. He is a higher level car salesman, but he still works on comission. The CEO is taxed more so he does not go and buy said Ferrari. Enough CEOs are taxed enough that nobody buys a Ferrari. Now the dealership shuts down. That sales guy I mentioned, he is out of work or taking a substantial pay cut selling KIAs (with BMW interiors). Also, all the mechanics, admin staffing and other salesmen who worked at that dealership are now in the unemployment line.

The CEO has a private jet. Lets call it a G-IV. Because his company can no longer afford said jet they either sell off the flight department completely or hire a contractor. Now a few pilots are out of work, maybe a mechanic, and a couple people who do administrative type things. Now said jet goes out to the desert or is sold to someone who would have otherwise bought new. Now the Gulfstream factory notices fewer orders, so they lay off workers. It is an ugly cycle.

The wealthy are not there to tax to death, hard work built this country, the last thing we should be doing is punishing those who worked hard.

When Bush entered office, the national debt was $5.4 Trillion. Today it is $7.4 Trillion. The Bush tax-cuts are responsible for the majority of this 20% increase - in just 4 years. Think we can continue to accumulate deficits at that rate? Someone, sometime will have to start paying that debt. That person is you, or your kids. So choose wisely - that piddling tax-cut you got will have to be repaid in full with interest soon enough.

Taxes will go up, probably for you and for me, and you know what, I really don't think that will have a big effect on the economy.

Remember Bush pere raised taxes and taxes stayed raised in the 90s. Didn't do squat to spending, investment or anything else. You may think the 90s boom was gossamer, but people were pouring money in, despite being taxed higher than they are now. and despite having income taxes raised in the early 90s.

I don't think you can say there's a nice linear effect between taxes and spending, it's more like a tipping point.

Taxes will have to be raised fairly substantially for the effect that you describe AIR2gxs.

Reagan's tax cuts worked (after a short nasty recession to kill stagflation) because rates back then were truly confiscatory. There was substantial disincentive to work, produce, or spend.

However, you can't say the same now, and the deficit just keeps on growing. Something's gotta give. The s**t will it the fan. A person can't live his life like that maxing out his credit cards and the US can't either.

If Kerry began to raise taxes so the highest rates were 70% like back in the 70s, I'd agree with the conservatives, but even if he masturbated at night thinking of doing that, no way he'd actually be *able* to do it.

Didn't the current government create the biggest deficit in US history? Wasn't the previous government running a balanced budget? Seems silly to talk about tax policy and whether or not a party supports bigger government when the party that is supposedly against big government and is for tax cuts has expanded government and spends like crazy. Talk is cheap. I would prefer my tax dollars spent on healthcare rather than Haliburton and I would prefer a government to make some attempt to balance the budget. How a guy that led the creation of the largest deficit ever can criticize the other candidate's financial abilities is beyond me. The US spent a record amount in the last four years and gave a tax rebate... can you honestly say you have felt positive change in the quality of your lives as a result?

Personally I don't think either candidate would have done nothing in response to 9/11. The question really is which one is going to improve life in the US, which one will spend smarter instead of just spending more, and which one will improve the country's relationships with the world. It is disappointing that the US is so divided while in Europe countries that have completely different cultures, completely different histories, and completely different languages are coming together.

Wrong, it will not take a large tax increase to have the affect I described. What most people fail to realize is the US economy is driven by consumer confidence. It is a pschological exercise. If I see a lower amount in my paycheck, I will spend less because I fear what may come.

Why do you think consumer confidence is such an important induicator? Why does the mere threat of an interest rate increase force the stock market to decline? Do you think its the 1/4 point? No, its the fact that people think they will have less to spend (they will have less, but not as little as they think).

I wouldn't be suprised that if Kerry gets elected the market will steady at first (the market hates un-certainty) but then starts trending down a little because of tax fears.

Air2gxs, that presupposes people are rational actors, you may be, but considering how much credit card debt people carry, most people aren't.

My point is that a neat linear equation, i.e raise taxes by x and people will spend less y, is a fantasy. So the idea that because Kerry's going to raise taxes, well Mr. and Mrs. America just won't be going to the malls is not credible, unless Kerry raises taxes a lot. And again, he's not going to even if he wanted to.

I don't know what the "tipping point" is when people will spend less, and there is a point, certainly, when taxing people will force people to spend less. But most people will notice that their paychecks went down a bit and will adjust their spending - for two days, then its back to business as usual.

Again, even the most liberal has to agree that Reagan's tax cuts were a spur to consumer spending and also a spur for people to work harder to make more money, and thus spurred the economy. However, most people, including conservative economists, agree that the amounts Bush pere raised taxes (with one exception) did little to drive people away from the malls. I believe that it did help reduce the deficit, which I think in the long term is going to be a problem.

Well. Anything that will happen will be influenced by the outcome of the Senate. If the unfortunate happens and Kerry is elected hopefully the Senate will stay republican and temper Hanoi Johns bad ideas.

but look for the following:

Our troops to be denied gear and new equipment they need.

A least a pullback to a level that is ineffective but one Hanoi John can claim is doing the job. Sort of the line Clinto walked when he was bombing Sudanese Asprin factories after the embassy bombings in Africa. After all he allready said he wants a "More sensitive war"

Taxes to go up, as Hanoi John tries to implement his unneeded and unwanted social programs. If you believe that will effect only 200K an year and over wageearners, I have a couple of 110 story towers in NYC for sale on E-bay.

Americans will lose civil rights as Hanoi John appeases the Nazi's that supported him and attempts to eliminate the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Alaskan's will be sold into economic slavery as Hanoi John appeals to the eviromental terrorists that supported them and closes the 1002 area to oil exploration.

Look for US not to stand up for itself in any world body, Annan and Chirac will praise this as a "newfound American cooperation in the world". Translated that means that they will now have the ablity to walk all over the US on international issues.

Look for a temporary improvement in the economy as the uncertainty of the election goes away. However expect it to tank as more employers move overseas because they can't afford the taxes to pay for Hanoi John's social programs.

The Draft. If Kerry intends on adding the military numbers he proposing, he'll have to draft people. Plain and simple. No one wants to join the military and follow this jackoff. God forbid we come home and he starts badmounthing us about how we didn't properly guard an ammo dump outside Baghdad. Oh, that's right he said it's Bush's fault... That's just Kerry's way of diverting attention from what he really meant.

Wow, you got that Kerry thing down pat. Talking out of both sides of your mouth. ROTFLMFAO!!!!!

Jetservice:

Whatever. Look at the facts - this country cannot continue reckless spending on corporate giveaways while simultaneously enacting tax-cuts that reduce revenue by a large factor. It is simply unsustainable.

So you want to keep the Bush tax-cuts. Fine. What spending do you propose eliminating to eliminate the ongoing deficit and start reducing the mountain of debt that has been accumulated, by mostly republican presidents?

Put away the 8th-grade "Kerry thing" baloney and support your case for tax-cuts in an era of runaway deficits.

If Kerry wins ( fat chance ) look for non-stop congressional hearings into every aspect of his personal life. The Christian right and the NRA will rev up to high gear spreading anti-government hate. On the good side peace might have a chance as war will not be the first choice to resolve ego problems.

N6376m: Actually I wonder about you being a career boy since you never fail NOT to read what others have to say and make extremely sure NOT to understand..but then people have made impressive careers doing exactly that

"Markets are almost always wrong. If not, how could bubbles exist? The only points where they are correct are what he call the inflection points - that is, when the bubble bursts or when the market bottoms out. If everything is already factored in, I guess we should expect the market to remain steady on Tues and Weds of this week. Let's see"

1. Nonsense!! Markets are never wrong!!! They are a fact, and facts cannot be wrong: If it rains outside, it rains, if you say it doesn't, you're wrong, if I say it does, I'm right, but the fact remains, that it rains!

2. World markets are currently very volatile, though they don't show exactly high amplitudes, so whether they remain steady or not is (almost) no question of your election. Not even oil prices will get a kick up or down by that election.

"If anything market volatility has increase as information technology has improved. That sort of sink's your argument. You might disagree with me but to say that you and the other professions are the only one with answers is a bit pompus."

That is indeed correct, funny enough,though lots of academics who have been watching capital markets to prove or un-prove CAPM and theories in information efficiency told us differently for decades...actually in my own doctor's thesis I doubted informational efficiency very much, but couldn't prove my point either, unfortunately.

Why this sinks my own argument remains completely unclear, though. I'm talking about macro-trends, and the outcome of your election is none anymore! You seem to talk about short-term volatility...ok for me, it's just so that it would be utter nonsense to say that the capital markets go down.

If they go down, then it is because of permanently soaring oil prices or because growth comes to a halt, but definitely not because GWB and JK each start to pack their things.

And in fact it is YOU who claims to know about markets, I, on the other hand, know markets well enough to claim that YOU DON'T!! It's all about you, honey, not me...

Re: Kirkie - I think if Kerry wins, there may be a fallout of some sort.

I think if Kerry wins, Mr. Blair will be doing the Dance of Joy round 10 Downing Street. Being seen as GWB's poodle is TB's biggest headache right now, and his biggest vote loser (not that he'll lose the next election, but GWB ain't helping). With Kerry in the White House, GWB simply ceases to be an issue. No matter what happens in Iraq (and I hope Kerry is able to improve the situation, though frankly I can't see how), it won't be worse than having GWB and his minions in charge. Kerry won't just withdraw from Iraq, leaving the UK high and dry, but he will start working on a when and how plan for withdrawal, which is what TB desperately needs.

"NEW YORK (CBS.MW) -- U.S. stocks staged a sharp reversal Tuesday, with blue chips sliding into negative territory and the Nasdaq paring gains amid reports that John Kerry is putting in a strong early showing at the polls. "

Well, on an airline front, the damage has been done. Bush told people not to fly unless they had to, after 9/11, plain and simple. That pratically screwed the major airlines, and I don't think any president will be able to change it. The age of the LCC's has arrived, and they are stealing many markets

Let me just say, that I am not an American so I really have no say in this...

But I was VERY VERY disapointed this morning!
I think most of the world was hoping for Kerry.

You ask what will change? I think Kerry is a man of great intelligence and intellect. His strategy will be much more open and respectful toward other countries, Bush has simply pushed away many countries, or so it seems...

I think the reelection of Bush is a grave mistake, but a democratic decision, which I am sad to say I don't think is the best for the US.

Domestically, well the poor will stay poor and the gays will still have no rights and so on, no biggie there... But internationally...I think much respect and international community will be lost, lots have been lost already, and what this election signals, in my opinion, is that Americans agree with Bush in his views and his ways of war and offensive strategies.

I think it would have been better if the Americans showed the world that they did not want a leader who is like Bush, that they see them selves as part of an international comunity rather than in a republican bubble...

So long and I hope you mean it when you wísh for God's Blessings, because I am afraid you are going to need it over the next 4 years...

He will be a President who thinks about things for years, never doing much of anything. He is definitely not someone who accomplishes things and turns on his positions like the weather. Now I realize how much I really want Bush to win.

The pathetic voter turnout in the USA always amazes me! It truely shows that in a country af approx 330 million people, for just 36% (approx) of the population to vote, the majority (the other 66% of the population) just dont care about who "leads" them. Lets face it, the USA is a very powerful and rich country and this generation of its citizens don't know what it feels like to have rampant hyperinflation, a banking freeze on its money supply, civil war, or other serious problems that other countries currently face. They still cry about their 1930's depression which happened approx 70 years ago. hehehe
Then again why should the average American, with his/her $US 215,000 house paid for (66% of the population), US$ 200,000 in the bank/investments (on average), driving a new car every 2-3 years, a stable income of US$ 40,000 per year (on average), shopping at stores that have an abundance of products, living a country that allows one to claim bankruptcy (personal or business) with impunity, even care! Never ceases to amaze me.
The old saying is true... When your stomach is FULL, you dont care about the hungry. Nothing will change!

Then again why should the average American, with his/her $US 215,000 house paid for

I doubt the average American lives in a $215,000 house, and if they do it is sure as hell not paid for.

"a stable income of US$ 40,000 per year (on average)"

How does someone making $40,000 a year afford a $215,000 house? Answer: It just doesn't happen. Do the math, figure out what $40,000/yr works out to per month, then figure out the cost of a 30yr mortgage on that $215,000 house at 5.5% (I think that is the current rate). It would take most of the persons monthy income to make the payment for that house.

"The pathetic voter turnout in the USA always amazes me! It truely shows that in a country af approx 330 million people, for just 36% (approx) of the population to vote, the majority (the other 66% of the population) just dont care about who "leads" them."

Ever wonder how many of that 66% you cite as not voting are unable to vote due to age, felony convictions, or any number of other reasons. Also, last I checked our population was around 250 million, not 330 million, but I may be wrong.

Sometimes it's better to shut up and leave the capital markets to those who understand it...you both don't! Funny that most dealers, analysts, fund managers etc. do not really care since most things are already priced in.

Well the evidence to the contrary continues to mount:

This morning's Wall Street Journal:

"Asian-Pacific stock markets ended mixed Thursday, with traders in Japan welcoming President Bush's re-election as signal of stability in Washington's economic policies, while share prices fell on profit-taking in other markets.

Japan's markets were closed for a holiday Wednesday and logged their first response Thursday morning to Mr. Bush's victory, confirmed when Democratic challenger John Kerry conceded defeat. The U.S. dollar edged lower.

"For the time being, there's a big sense of relief," said Seiki Orimi, chief strategist at UFJ Tsubasa Securities in Tokyo. "With Bush re-elected, what was being viewed as the Kerry risk factor is gone."

----------------------------------------

I guess we have a better understanding of the market than you do with all your degrees. You know what they say about those who can't - they teach.

You ran your mouth pretty hard and now you don't have the balls to even admit your error.

"You ran your mouth pretty hard and now you don't have the balls to even admit your error."

You indicated he was a teacher, that adds great support to that. In my experience professors who have never had a real job never admit error, they are incapable of making a mistake in their eyes, it must be the markets that are wrong.